ML20199L616

Safety Evaluation Accepting Util Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 3.2, Post-Maint Testing (All Other Safety- Related Equipment)

ML20199L616
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	07/03/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20199L610	List: ML20199L605 ML20199L616
References
GL-83-28, TAC-53756, NUDOCS 8607090498
Download: ML20199L616 (2)

Text

_

/ 'o g UNITED STATES

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ;j W ASHINGToN, D. C. 20555

\...../ SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FT. CALHOUN STATION UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-285 GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 3.2, POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protection system. This incident occurred during the plant startup and the reactor was tripped manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the automatic trip signal. The failure of the circuit breakers has been determined to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment. Prior to this incident, on February 22, 1983, at Unit 1 of 4

the Salem Nuclear Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on steam, I

, generator low-low level during plant startup. In this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic

! trip. Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive l Director for Operations (ED0), directed the staff to investigate and report oh

! the generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant. The results of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant." As a result of this investigation, the Commission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8, 1983) all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to certain generic concerns. These concerns are categorized into four areas: (1) Post-Trip Review, (2) Equipment Classification and Vendor Interface, (3) Postmaintenance Testing, and (4) Reactor Trip System Reliability Improvements.

The third action item, Postmaintenance Testing, consists of Action Item 3.1, "Postmaintenance Testing (Reactor Trip System Components)" and Action Item 3.2, "Postmaintenance Testing (All Other Safety-Related Components)." This d

safety evaluation (SE) addresses Action Item 3.2 only.

REVIEW GUIDELINES g The following review guidelines were developed after initial evaluation of-tne ,-

various utility responses to Item 3.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 and incorporate the best features of these submittals. As such, these review guidelines in effect represent a " good practices" approach to postmaintenance testing verification review. The staff has reviewed the licensee's response to Item 3.2 against these guidelines:

A. The licensee or applicant shall submit a statement indicating that it has reviewed plant test procedures, maintenance procedures and Technical Specifications to assure that postmaintenance ope d ility testing of safety-related components is required.

~

8607090498 860703 PDR ADOCK 05000285 P PDR

A

(

B. The licensee or applicant shall submit a statement verifying that vendor recommended test guidance has been reviewed, evaluated, and where appropriate, included in the test and maintenance procedures or Technical Specifications.

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION By letters dated November 4, 1983 and December 10, 1985, the licensee of the Ft. Calhoun Station provided information regarding its postmaintenance testing verification of all safety-related components. The staff has reviewed the licensee's response and the staff's evaluation of the response against each of the review guidelines is provided below:

A. The licensee stated that existing safety-related maintenance procedures have been reviewed to determine the need for postmaintenance testing requirements. The procedures contained requirements for postmaintenance testing where applicable and necessary. Standing Order G-17, Maintenance Orders, provides additional assurance that postmaintenance testing will be accompljshed by directing the technical reviewer of a maintenance order to specify such testing where applicable.

The licensee also stated that in order to emphasize the need for ~,

considering postmaintenance te: ting of safety-related equipment; Standing Order G-3, Special Procedures: G-17, Maintenance Orders; M-1, Maintenance Procedures and M-2, Preventive Maintenance, were revised. The staff finds this statement acceptable.

B. The licensee stated that Standing Order G-36 is used to periodically review operating manual procedures. A review of Standing Order G-36 has been completed to ensure that all necessary procedures are included. A procedure change has been made to improve the quality of the review process and to include necessary vendor information in the required review. The staff finds that statement acceptable.

Based on this review, the staff concludes that the licensee's response to postmaintenance testing of all safety-related components for the Ft. Calhoun Station is acceptable. -

Date: July 3,1986 Principal Contributor: J. Bess

.